DOCSLIB.ORG

Secession from the European Union and Private International Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Secession from the European Union and Private International Law Secession from the European Union and Private International Law Adrian Briggs 1. In the six or seven months since the referendum, the future of commercial litigation in England has been pondered and discussed, in many fora, as well as before the Committee. It seems fair to say that the general view is (1) that secession from the European Union represents, for commercial law and commercial lawyers, a serious loss; (2) that the only way to repair the damage, at least in part, will be to persuade the European Union to replicate the substance of the existing rules as found, in particular, in the Brussels I Regulation, Regulation 1215/2012; and (3) that on the issue of why the European Union might agree to this, the general tenor of advice appears to be that it is what reasonable people would agree to do, it being clear but unsaid that the European Union may not see a need to do what the British commentators see as reasonable. 2. The approach taken here is that points (1) and (2) are true, if only on balance; but that (3) seriously under-estimates the rational bargaining position of the United Kingdom. 3. That said, it is disconcerting to hear how often it is said that our legal system, commercial courts, judiciary, law, lawyers, et cetera, are the best in the world, with the implicit message that this is the reason why no-one need worry: the objections to such complacency are not diminished by the assertion that there is no complacency. What should surely be done is to work out what we want, and how, realistically, we may get there. We have a once-in-a generation opportunity to compare the rules of private international law which we currently have with what we might instead have, and to take stock. When that is done, the path ahead will be seen to be rather clearer and brighter than some others have suggested. One certainly hears people suggesting that secession from the European Union is going to have a damaging effect, but for our private international law, if we think carefully about it, the truth may well be otherwise. (A) The issues in summary form 4. Here is what we have so far. The government says that it intends to repeal the European Communities Act 1972. This will cut the strings which tie Regulations of the European Union into the legal order of the United Kingdom: that means the end of the major Regulations which are, rather oddly, named after towns and cities: Brussels I (jurisdiction and judgments),1 Brussels II (matrimonial decrees and parental QC (Hon); Professor of Private International Law, University of Oxford; Sir Richard Gozney Fellow and Tutor in Law, St Edmund Hall, Oxford; Barrister (Blackstone Chambers, Temple). I am grateful for the opportunity to express these views which were, in substance, delivered in a lecture to the Commercial Bar Association on 24th January 2017. - 1 - responsibility),2 Rome I (law applicable to contractual obligations),3 Rome II (law applicable to non-contractual obligations).4 It will also apply to the Lugano II Convention5 on jurisdiction and judgments between the EU (not the Member States as such) and Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, for the United Kingdom is not a state party to this Convention which was concluded by the EU, and not by its Member States. 5. Withdrawal and repeal of the 1972 Act will also cut the cord for those other6 hybrid European Regulations which deal with jurisdiction, applicable law and recognition, most notably in the fields of Insolvency7 and Maintenance.8 It will also disable the Evidence Regulation,9 the Service Regulation,10 as well as several other instruments of lesser daily importance but which assist small claims or proceedings in which the claim is unanswerable and unanswered. 6. Repeal of the 1972 Act will not, technically at least, affect the Brussels and Rome Conventions, which were made as international treaties and enacted in the United Kingdom by primary legislation.11 It is therefore possible to argue, as some have argued, that these could rise from the dead and that all interested parties in the United Kingdom, in Europe, and in Luxembourg in particular, would instantly agree that this had taken place, even as the United Kingdom had declared its independence from the authority of the European Court: possible to argue, yes, but in the highest degree unlikely. Although some very serious colleagues have looked at the technicalities,12 if one is being realistic about it, the idea is not credible.13 It would require the Member States, and the European 1 The current version, Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 superseded, as between the Member States, (Art 68) Regulation (EC) 44/2001. Quite why the word ‘recast’ appears in parenthesis in the title of Regulation 1215/2012 is not clear, but the terminology has proved durable. 2 Regulation (EC) 2201/2003, which repealed (Art 71) Regulation (EC) 1347/2000. 3 Regulation (EC) 593/2008. 4 Regulation (EC) 864/2007. 5 Printed in [2007] OJ L339/1. 6 Other, because to some extent, Brussels II is one of these. 7 Regulation (EC) 1346/2000, which is ‘recast’ by Regulation (EU) 848/2015. In this case, the recast Regulation repeals (Art 91) the earlier Regulation, though preserving it in legal effect (Art 84(2)) for proceedings opened prior to the commencement date of the recast Regulation. 8 Regulation (EU) 4/2009. 9 Regulation (EC) 1206/2001. 10 Regulation (EC) 1393/2007, which (Art 25) repealed Regulation (EC) 1348/2000. 11 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 and Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990, respectively. 12 In particular Professor Dickinson (2016) 12 JPIL 195; Masters & McRae (2016) 33 J Int Arb, Special Issue, 483; Sir Richard Aikens and A Dinsmore (2016) 27 EBLR 903. 13 The Brussels Convention was a treaty between the Contracting States of the EEC, which they were directed to conclude, in general terms at least, by Art 220 of the Treaty of Rome. It was, as between the Member States, superseded by Regulation 44/2001 (see Art 68) except as it continued to apply to territories (such as Aruba, Tahiti, St Pierre & Miquelon) to which the Regulation did not extend, and to Denmark (defined as not being a Member State by Art 1(3)). As between the Member States, it was not said to be superseded for only so long as they remained Member States. The Regulation could not and did not declare the Brussels Convention to be repealed, for it is hard to see how a Regulation could repeal a Treaty. It was plainly intended that the Convention cease to operate as between the Member States, and that, therefore, the Regulation brought it to a final legal end as between the United Kingdom and the other states to which the Regulation then applied. There is no indication to be had from the Brussels Convention that it was ever - 2 - Union, which means the European Court, to agree on the analysis, and that is not on the cards. Neither is it desirable, for our law would not be in better shape if the Brussels Convention were restored to the register.14 It should be put aside. 7. This is the loss for private international law and lawyers. The government has, however, said that it will, where it is practicable to proceed this way, re-enact the laws whose strings it has just cut, adopting the orphaned texts and making them as laws of the United Kingdom on the direct authority of Parliament at Westminster. In practical terms, this makes a lot of sense: it is, after all, similar to what was done by various states which became independent of the United Kingdom as colonial power. It seems in our case to mean several things. 8. First, the United Kingdom could and should re-enact the text of the Rome I and Rome II Regulations on the law applicable to contractual and non-contractual obligations. These are private international law rules for determination of the applicable law; they do not limit their scope to person or contracts connected with the Member States. The question which arises, and which will be answered shortly, is whether it would be better to do this or to go back to what was there before. We should therefore ask which set of rules – Regulation or pre-Regulation – offers the better way for an English court to approach the identification of the applicable law for contractual and non-contractual obligations. It is an easy question to answer. 9. Second, where the hybrid Regulations on matrimonial and parental matters, insolvency, and maintenance, are concerned, local re-enactment is impracticable. However, where matrimonial and parental, and maintenance, issues are concerned, it is not hard to imagine that a parallel copy instrument should be agreed on all sides. There is no commercial interest at stake, just the personal lives of adults and children. It raises issues entirely separate and distinct from the rather more controversial commercial issues which arise in relation to Brussels I, Lugano II, Rome I and Rome II, and is therefore not pursued here in any detail. intended to operate in relation to a state which was not a contracting (now member) state; no indication to be had from the Regulation which superseded it that the supersession was intended to be provisional or temporary. As far as the other Member States are concerned, the United Kingdom will be, by its own choice, a non-Member State. Article 68(1) provides that Regulation 44/2001 ‘shall, as between the Member States, supersede the Brussels Convention, except as regards the territories of the Member States which fall within the territorial scope of that Convention and which are excluded from this Regulation pursuant to Article 299 of the Treaty’.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Rome II Regulation the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations
    ©2009 Andrew Dickinson Not to be re-published in any form without permission The Rome II Regulation The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations Andrew Dickinson www.romeii.eu First Online Supplement – May 2009 Author’s Introduction This supplement focuses on developments since October 2008. In particular, in the absence of judicial consideration of the Regulation’s provisions following its application date (11 January 2009), it draws attention to legislation implementing the Regulation in the United Kingdom, to recent ECJ cases concerning other EC private international law instruments, to new decisions of the English courts concerning the pre-Regulation rules of applicable law, and to recent books and journal articles. There is an ever growing body of literature on the Regulation, in the form of both books and articles. As is to be expected, the authors consider a wide array of issues and express widely diverging views on many of those issues. It is, of course, no more legitimate to resolve difficult or controversial questions by counting the number of supporters for a particular position than it is to determine the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation by numerically listing the number of contacts to a particular country or its law. Accordingly, the references in the following commentary to the views of other writers are intended to facilitate access to their reasoning on specific points, whether in line with or opposed to the reasoning in the main work, rather than attempts to buttress or weaken the author’s position on those points by citation alone. Notes A second cumulative supplement to Dicey, Morris & Collins, The Conflict of Laws (14 th edn, 2006) was published in December 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pitfall of Interpreting Rome II Regulation Consistently with Brussels I Regulation
    ISSN 1392–6195 (print) ISSN 2029–2058 (online) JURISPRUDENCIJA JURISPRUDENCE 2009, 2(116), p. 229–244 THE pitfall OF INTERPRETING ROME II Regulation consistently WITH Brussels I Regulation1 Jiří Valdhans Masaryk University, Faculty of Law Department of International and European Law Veveří 70, 602 00, Brno, Czech Republic Telephone: (+420) 549498121 E-mail: [email protected] Received 5 May, 2009; accepted 27 May, 2009 Annotation. This article addresses several aspects of interaction between procedural and conflict rule regulation in private international law both of which are subject to unifi- cation process under the European Community law. They are interdependent of each other, and use the same or similar terms on many occasions. Problems with interpretation arise in application of these legal regulations. The European Court of Justice addresses them more or less successfully. As demonstrated in this article, the interpretation of procedural rules of regulation may contribute to the clarification of the conflict rules and vice versa. It can be even said that the mutual interaction of conflict rules and procedural rules through interpre- tation is both unavoidable and desirable. Keywords: Non-contractual obligation, delict, tort, Brussels I Regulation, Rome II Regulation, unification, interaction, interpretation, qualification, unjust enrichment, pre- contractual liability, European Court of Justice, Kalfelis, Mines de potasse d’Alsace. 1 Writing of this article was enabled by the Postdoctoral grant n. 407/08/P624. Delicts from the view of Private International Law supported by the Czech Science Foundation. Jurisprudencija/Jurisprudence ISSN 1392–6195 (print), ISSN 2029–2058 (online) Mykolo Romerio universitetas, 2009 http://www.mruni.eu/lt/mokslo_darbai/jurisprudencija/ Juris_2(116)_tirazui.indb 229 2009.07.02 14:11:49 0 Jiří Valdhans.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation Brussels Iibis Guide for Application
    Regulation Brussels IIbis Guide for Application As part of the final output from the project ‘Cross-Border Proceedings in Family Law Matters before National Courts and CJEU’, funded by the European Commission’s Justice Programme (GA - JUST/2014/JCOO/AG/CIVI/7722). July 2018 General Editor: V. Lazić Authors: Vesna Lazić (T.M.C. Asser Instituut and Utrecht University) Wendy Schrama (Utrecht University) Jaqueline Gray (Utrecht University) Lisette Frohn (International Legal Institute) Richard Blauwhoff (International Legal Institute) Jinske Verhellen (Ghent University) Valerie De Ruyck (Ghent University) Pablo Quinzá Redondo (University of Valencia) II Contents Preface .................................................................................................................................... XI Vesna Lazić ............................................................................................................................. XII CHAPTER 1: Scope and Definitions ..................................................................................... 1 Jaqueline Gray, Wendy Schrama and Vesna Lazić .................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3 2. Substantive (ratione materiae) scope of application – Article 1 .......................................... 4 2.1 Matrimonial matters – Article 1(1)(a) ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Rome II Regulation
    HOUSE OF LORDS European Union Committee 8th Report of Session 2003-04 The Rome II Regulation Report with Evidence Ordered to be printed 30 March and published 7 April 2004 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords London: The Stationery Office Limited £price HL Paper 66 The European Union Committee The European Union Committee is appointed by the House of Lords “to consider European Union documents and other matters relating to the European Union”. The Committee has seven Sub-Committees which are: Economic and Financial Affairs, and International Trade (Sub-Committee A) Internal Market (Sub-Committee B) Foreign Affairs, Defence and Development Policy (Sub-Committee C) Agriculture and Environment (Sub-Committee D) Law and Institutions (Sub-Committee E) Home Affairs (Sub-Committee F) Social and Consumer Affairs (Sub-Committee G) (established in December 2003) Our Membership The members of the European Union Committee are: Baroness Billingham Lord Marlesford Lord Bowness Lord Neill of Bladen Lord Brennan Baroness Park of Monmouth Lord Dubs Lord Radice Lord Geddes Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Grenfell (Chairman) Lord Scott of Foscote Lord Hannay of Chiswick Lord Shutt of Greetland Baroness Harris of Richmond Lord Williamson of Horton Baroness Maddock Lord Woolmer of Leeds The Members of the Sub-Committee which conducted the inquiry are listed in Appendix 1. Information about the Committee The reports and evidence of the Committee are published by and available from The Stationery Office. For information freely available on the web, our homepage is: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_eu_select_committee.cfm There you will find many of our publications, along with press notices, details of membership and forthcoming meetings, and other information about the ongoing work of the Committee and its Sub-Committees, each of which has its own homepage.
    [Show full text]
  • The EU Child Return Procedure: in Search of Efficiency
    THEMIS 2017 Semi-final B International Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters – European Family Law The EU Child Return Procedure: in search of efficiency Team Greece Tutor: Prof. Spyridon Tsantinis Eirini Biniari - Sofia Cheimara - Stefania Angeliki Kapaktsi Table of contents I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ........................................................................................ 2 I.A. The Relation between the Brussels IIa Regulation and the 1980 Hague Convention: Friends or Foes? ......................................................................................................................... 2 a. Similarities make “friends”. ........................................................................................ 2 b. Differences make “foes” ............................................................................................. 3 c. Was there a need for Brussels IIa Regulation on child abduction? The objective of Article 11 ................................................................................................................................... 4 I.B. Scope of Application........................................................................................................... 5 II. RULES TO ENSURE THE PROMPT RETURN OF THE CHILD .................................... 5 II.A. Nature and Duration of the Child Return Proceedings...................................................... 5 a. Jurisdiction (Art. 10) ................................................................................................... 5
    [Show full text]
  • Practice Guide for the Application of the Brussels Iia Regulation
    Practice Guide for the application of the Brussels IIa Regulation Justice 2 Practice Guide for the application of the Brussels IIa Regulation Table of Contents 1. General Introduction ...................................................................................................4 1.1. Geographical scope – Article 2.3 ...............................................................................................5 1.2. Commencement provisions – Article 72 ........................................................................................5 1.3. Transitional rules – Article 64 .................................................................................................5 2. Matrimonial Matters ..................................................................................................8 2.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................9 2.2. Material scope in matrimonial matters ........................................................................................9 2.3. Which courts have jurisdiction in matrimonial matters? ...........................................................................9 2.4. Lis Pendens - or what happens if proceedings are brought in two Member States? – Article 19 (1) ..................................15 2.5. Recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters ..............................................................15 3. Parental Responsibility ...............................................................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • The Rome II Regulation De Boer, T.M
    UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) The purpose of uniform choice-of law rules: the Rome II Regulation de Boer, T.M. DOI 10.1017/S0165070X09002952 Publication date 2009 Document Version Final published version Published in Netherlands International Law Review Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): de Boer, T. M. (2009). The purpose of uniform choice-of law rules: the Rome II Regulation. Netherlands International Law Review, 56(3), 295-332. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0165070X09002952 General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:25 Sep 2021 NILR 2009 295 THE PURPOSE OF UNIFORM CHOICE-OF-LAW RULES: THE ROME II REGULATION by Th.M. de Boer* 1. Methodological background 2. A catalogue of objectives 3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future Relationship Between the UK and the EU Following the UK's
    STUDY Requested by the JURI committee The Future Relationship between the UK and the EU following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU in the field of family law Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union PE 608.834 - October 2018 EN The Future Relationship between the UK and the EU following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU in the field of family law STUDY Abstract This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the Committee on Legal Affairs, explores the possible legal scenarios of judicial cooperation between the EU and the UK at both the stage of the withdrawal and of the future relationship in the area of family law, covering the developments up until 5 October 2018. More specifically, it assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the various options for what should happen to family law cooperation after Brexit in terms of legal certainty, effectiveness and coherence. It also reflects on the possible impact of the departure of the UK from the EU on the further development of EU family law. Finally, it offers some policy recommendations on the topics under examination. ABOUT THE PUBLICATION This research paper was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs and commissioned, overseen and published by the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Policy Departments provide independent expertise, both in-house and externally, to support European Parliament committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation and exercising democratic scrutiny over EU external and internal policies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problematics of Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages Originating from Member States According to the Eu Legal Regulation
    ISSN 2029–2236 (print) ISSN 2029–2244 (online) SOCIALINIŲ MOKSLŲ STUDIJOS SOCIETAL STUDIES 2012, 4(2), p. 755–775. THE PROBLEMATICS OF RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES ORIGINATING FROM MEMBER STATES ACCORDING TO THE EU LEGAL REGULATION Laima Vaigė Mykolas Romeris University, Faculty of Law, Department of International and European Union Law Ateities 20, LT-08303 Vilnius, Lithuania Telephone (+370 5) 271 4699 E-mail: [email protected] Received on 15 May, 2011, accepted 5 March, 2012 Abstract. The notion of “marriage” has been growing wider during the last decade and an increasing number of member states of the European Union (EU) has made or is in the process of making it available to same-sex partners. Considering the different notions of ‘marriage’ in member states and the crucial effects of nonrecognition, the EU is addressed with the task of providing some kind of a solution. Although some legislative proposals have already been adopted or pending, the situation still largely resembles a legal ‘jungle’. The paper concentrates on the developments at the EU level that are related to cross- border recognition of same-sex marriages originating from within the EU. First, it analyzes the applicability of the relevant EU Regulations on jurisdiction, recognition and applicable law to same-sex marriages. Then the author focuses on the recent case practice of the CJEU to assess whether non-recognition of same-sex marriages in Lithuania may constitute discrimination under the relevant EU law. The third part of the paper is aimed at the analysis on the concept of the EU citizenship and its applicability to same-sex marriage recognition.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring the Effectiveness of the EU Civil Justice Framework: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges
    Measuring the Effectiveness of the EU Civil Justice Framework: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges ∗∗ Mihail Danov and Paul Beaumont0F 1F Abstract A number of harmonised private international law instruments appear to be the foundation of the whole EU civil justice framework, which primarily aims to provide effective remedies for litigants in cross- border cases. Given the level of diversity across the EU, a major feature of the EU legal landscape is the triangular relationship between the allocation of jurisdiction and identification of applicable law, on the one hand, and the available remedy, on the other hand. It appears that, when it comes to the administration of justice in a cross-border context within the EU, this triangular relationship encompasses the ability of the Member States’ courts to deal with cross-border disputes which may be important for the forum selection process. An EU model of administration of justice, which allows litigants to choose where to litigate, may result in some jurisdictions being promoted as dominant. This can only happen, of course, because the EU has already created free movement of judgments in large areas of commercial and family law. Once a judgment has been secured in any one EU Member State it should be enforceable in all others with little or no hindrance. However, litigants may have to consider where a judgment is to be actually enforced given that the rules on actual enforcement are not harmonised in the EU (this may be particularly significant in relation to family law disputes). The dominant jurisdictions could be attracting more cross-border cases, and thus some jurisdictions may become a venue of choice for the high value cross-border disputes.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Judicial Cooperation Report
    Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union Civil Judicial Cooperation February 2014 Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union Civil Judicial Cooperation © Crown copyright 2014 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ doc/open-government-licence/ or e-mail: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected]. This document is also available from our website https://gcn.civilservice.gov.uk/ Contents Executive Summary 5 Introduction 11 Chapter 1 The Historical Development of EU Competence in Civil Judicial Cooperation 15 Chapter 2 The Current State of Competence 21 Chapter 3 Impact on the National Interest – A Summary of Responses 37 Chapter 4 Future Options and Challenges 57 Annex A Submissions to the Call for Evidence 63 Annex B Engagement Events 65 Annex C Overview of Legislation and Opt-In 68 Executive Summary This report examines the balance of competences between the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) in the area of civil judicial cooperation, and is led by the Ministry of Justice. It is a reflection and analysis of the evidence submitted by experts, non-governmental organisations, businesspeople, Members of Parliament and other interested parties, either in writing or orally, as well as a literature review of relevant material.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Gaps and Future Perspectives On
    DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZEN’S RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS LEGAL AFFAIRS A European Framework for private international law: current gaps and future perspectives STUDY Abstract This report identifies the gaps that exist in the current European framework of private international law and suggests a road map towards a more comprehensive codification of EU private international law. For the time being, legislative efforts should be directed at creating separate instruments for well-defined problems of private international law. The fruits of these efforts could in the long-term be combined in a code of EU private international law. PE 462.487 EN This document was requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs AUTHORS Prof. Dr. Xandra Kramer (scientific director) Mr Michiel de Rooij, LL.M. (project leader) Dr. Vesna Lazić Dr. Richard Blauwhoff Ms Lisette Frohn, LL.M. RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Ms Vesna Naglič Policy Department C – Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B – 1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSION Original: EN Translation: DE/FR ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to: poldep- [email protected] European Parliament, manuscript completed in November 2012 © European Union, 2012 This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.
    [Show full text]